engagement.

I’m having a really hard time with it lately.

I’ve been on a medication for months now that is causing mood swings, suicidality (more serious than has ever happened to me before, even through far, far more traumatic events) and significant dissociation. My doctor won’t give me a prescription for the old medication (which we know works, but hoped this one might work better) until I see him and he isn’t available until well into September. I call every day for cancellations. I have yet to catch one.

I can’t connect to my own experience. There are these huge changes in my life and I can feel a radical shift in my political consciousness but I cannot even figure out for myself what it is, much less articulate it for the people existing outside my shell of skin. Can’t even describe it to my husband or best friend, much less to strangers and minor acquaintances.

I want to be out there. I want to be doing this work. I want to be out there thinking, speaking, shouting. Pushing, pulling, exchanging. My heart is in this so deep.

It has been continual frustration over the past year, year and a half, as I’ve lost connection with myself, lost spoons, lost wherewithal, watched as so much has passed me by and all I can do is putter along the side of the highway, slow and careful baby steps beside large and powerful vehicles zooming by in a flash.

I can only do so much and unfortunately, what I want to do requires so much of me. It’s not as easy as “think smaller,” do little things, they still matter, etc. Because even the little things require a base investment that I am just not able to afford most days.

So I think to myself, hey I have time tomorrow, this weekend, next month. And by that time, my mind has lost connection with whatever it is I was wanting to do, read, think about, write about. And to be able to go back to it, I have to give that base investment again. Take myself away from whatever is going on that moment, and immerse myself in this point from my detached unaware fleeting past, and try to re-connect to whatever was going on in my head at that time.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this never really works.

So I flit about from day to day, trying to keep my brain awake, taking in information, revving and whirring and trying to do something with it — but I never quite move far enough up the levels to the ability to engage. To stop struggling to just exist, to start doing something other than just be.

And the day passes, and I haven’t done anything, and I go to bed and wake up the next morning to start from the bottom again.

***

i’m going to be doing this in small, incomplete doses. it will be disjointed, incoherent, and inconsistent. the parts may not seem to have connection to the whole, or may seem to repeat themselves. this is the only way I can do things, so bear with me.

***

I’ve been doing a lot of reflecting in recent months.

I honestly don’t know what to do with myself.

My ability to be meaningfully involved with the various communities in which I have found place has slipped away. The condition I find myself in now leaves me mourning the loss of my ability to consider, to plan, to change or to modify, the things that I do.

I can only do what is immediately available to me. If something is not immediately available, I am not going to be able to do it – at all.
If I am writing, I can either write the words that spill out of my brain or write nothing.
If I am reading, I can either read the words I can comprehend right this moment or read nothing.
In all that I do, I can either engage with what I am emotionally capable of engaging with or not engage at all.
No matter what, I can either do something right now or not do it at all.

The me that is available right this moment is the only me that you’ll ever get. If I can’t reach every part of me, then those parts of me aren’t going to be available. Only the parts that are here right now effectively exist for you.

***

august 1, 2010

I’ve noticed certain patterns in my social life. In the way I interact with other people. In the way I conduct myself as a member of the community. In the approach I take to working with others.

I am not liking some of what I see.

I’ve spent the last six months or so trying to dig deep, clawing down and down, trying to reach the depths of my soul, so  that I can see them. So that I can figure out why things have happened the way they have — but more than that — what is within my capacity to change that will allow me to become the person I want to be?

***

august 6, 2010

I don’t know whether this is a function of what was modeled to me as I grew up (my mother has borderline) — or something innate in me just starting to come out — or whether I’m misinterpreting it altogether.

I do know I’m ok with it. It’s not wrong. It’s just difficult to deal with internally.

I lay low at first. Then I feel out my place. Then I grow comfortable, and I assert ownership of my place. Then something happens, something huge or something tiny I don’t even commit to memory, just something, and I grow scared. I look inward. I want to change something. Not in the sense of “something needs to change” but in the sense that I have identified the specific thing and know what to do about it. And this is where things fall apart: I cannot change anything, large nor small. I can only throw out the whole of me and start over. All over.

I’ve done it a few times. And I’m tired. Just tired. That building process takes energy. Energy I just don’t have anymore.

And when I think about it, I like my place. I’ve set things up pretty nice. There are aspects of me I wouldn’t change for a minute. I’ve grown into something that I like, and appreciate, and value. Immensely.

And I’ve made connections. Come to know people. Come to have people know me…

but that’s what’s so scary.

Because I can’t change. Not consciously. Because people have one concept of me in their minds… I’m not me, I’m not mine. I could change me, this person right here, but the me that exists in all those other minds out there… I would have to change each one, individually, one by one, and some of them wouldn’t change, and some of them people would fight changing, and I would have to assert my change, my right to my change, and put forth the energy, energy, energy…

Because I’m not me. I’m not a person. I only exist insofar as other people have concept of me in their minds. I don’t exist in reality. I exist in other people’s minds.

If I need to change — and I don’t have the energy to go from person to person, changing their minds — then I have two options: remain the same…

… or leave it all behind, and start over.

but I can’t. I don’t want to. I don’t want to dammit I finally started building a real person and now I am losing it, losing that, connection slipped away. Here I am again, removed of reality, a personless entity. Confronted with something difficult, the tangible person might just slip away, and I am a ghost again…

***

that started out being about the way I handle relationships with other people… and ended up being about the way I handle being.

***

august 7, 2010

Today I am going to MedExpress because I broke down this morning and almost killed myself. My medication is part of it. But my situation can’t be removed from it either. I can take care of the medication part now. The other part takes a long time to process.

***

written privately:

I have been withdrawing further and further, from everything, and every single time I stick my neck out even an inch and try to say something I end up regretting it. regretting ever speaking a single public word. regretting being a real-life person that doesn’t close herself in one room for the rest of her life, only observing, never participating.

I’ve been regretting a lot of things I’ve said and done in the past.
regretting a lot of my patterns of behavior, a lot of my own tendencies.

trying to figure out WHAT is bothering me. WHAT is wrong.

doubting the “social justice” structure, doubting the Set Of Rules that are set in stone and the choreographed steps of the One Way To Do Things that one must follow at all times or else be consumed in abuse.
that includes “callouts” it includes gotchas it includes the focus on Bad Words over all other forms of oppression.
have ALWAYS hated the word “ally” and have come to hate the entire idea of binary identity, you are X or Y, and the Rules that must be followed to count as either/or. always hated the way it incentivizes people to get involved in matters of justice insomuch as it boosts their cred to other people. rather than to help a fellow living being.

I’ve been wondering, fuck, how are we raised as children that we are extremely fluent in Good and Bad Words, in tv shows and music, but as a community can’t meaningfully engage on all the thousands of little pieces of people’s real lived lives? the way we treat each other, the way certain types of people are left to starve or left in solitude or left to die because it’s not our responsibility to _____.

I hate these discussions. cant fucking stand them anymore. don’t know what to do with myself when I get home, because I can’t imagine being happy with myself ethically with being involved in anything. anything.

I can tell you that the more I look back on everything I have done, the more I hate myself. over the past three and some years.

there are a few things I am proud of. and will always be. but they can probably be counted on one hand, the things that I would not change. out of all the thousands of words I have spoken, or nto spoken, for those three years.

I’ve been working INTENSELY on processing this. figuring out WHAT is wrong and then figuring out how to apply that.
i spend every single day thinking through all of this.

[a particular incident] was radicalizing for me, and not in the way most people mean when they use that word.
i think it broke my spirit.

I am thinking more and more that I give up on having a conscious part in this, or any community focused on justice, because I feel like being known as A Person starts to poison my ability to act toward the actual betterment of hurting people. it poisons things from the start. I don’t know if I, just me amanda, am capable of handling a public presence at all without doing some really awful things.

I just don’t want to say I’M DONE GOODBYE to everything and then find a way to be a help. to be wholesome. and go back on my word.

I just want to poke along in quiet, just be an average nobody who isn’t trying to be known just wants to do things to herself and let people take from that what they want but not go and engage them when they do. I want to exist as just words. not a person.

The only reason I can’t quit, if I’m 100% honest, is because I can’t EXIST without having this community and this reading to feed my soul. If I give up my involvement, I basically give up on living, because I haven’t found anything that feeds me in that way other than this, and I won’t survive trying to walk that gap. If I quit, I will die.

I don’t know that there’s such a thing as organizing that doesn’t turn to shit.
I don’t know that humanity can return something worthy when we try to invest in it.

***

august 8, 2010

I don’t even know what I think. I spent  this weekend thinking about blowing everything up. This blog, my identity, my involvement in anything at all. Today, I feel ok with continuing as who I am. Knowing that I can change, and that’s a good thing. Standing by what I’ve said in the past, because it’s more honest than trying to erase what I’ve done. I’d rather be real but complicated than be a squeaky-clean, artificial symbol of perfection.

I thought back on the things I’ve written, and there are some things that I think are good. and successful. and important.
and I don’t want to blow those things up.

I have no idea how I’ll feel tomorrow.

***

I think that for the health of a community it is essential that a wide variety of approaches are supported, encouraged, nurtured, valued.

No community can thrive, and make progress, for so long as it limits the range of human reaction in its members.

This means that anger must be accepted. Embraced.

It means that being measured and reasonable must be allowed from those who feel able to be as much.

It means that being measured and reasonable must never be glorified or set up on a pedastal as the one true way.

When people declare that they cannot tolerate sarcasm – or hostility – or any other negative-realm reaction — they declare that they will not recognize those who feel or display these things as fully human.

It is fully possible to feel one way yourself — to tend toward certain patterns of behavior yourself — or even to look into the advantages and disadvantages inherent in various approaches to engagement. It is ok to recognize that anger can skew things certain undesirable ways.

But you must also realize that “reason” has disadvantages. “Logic” skews things certain ways. Being “even-handed” or “level-headed” or “fair” can cause harm on the margins as well.

And we all must recognize that anger is an integral part of healing. When a community, or an individual within it, faces trauma, survives abuse, endures violence and coercion — part of human reaction is anger, even hatred of the other party, or those who enable the abuse.

Some people never feel it. Sometimes, it’s merely one of many phases a person must go through to make right. And for others, it’s one facet of the prism through which they view their day-to-day life, in perpetuity.

And all of  that is ok. Because all of that is human.

It is dangerous to deny these things to people. It is harmful to stunt their growth, their recovery, their building, by only allowing, or only approving of, the pleasant and easy parts of them.

Perhaps you want no part in an activism that engages in snark. Or that doesn’t frame itself for the benefit of those outside the community.

I believe it is far healthier for the future of the community and the rest of  the world to meet people where they are, and work with them, than to wrinkle your nose at their messy reality and wash your hands of them.

***

All organizing is doomed to replicate the very structures it purports to destroy.

There is no such things as a human being free of influence. All human beings are shaped and moulded creatures, moving through their world differently than any other human being around them. All of the things that happen to us, all of the things that are impressed upon us, are irreversible. We can take those things and move in a somewhat different direction, but we can never be free of them altogether.

Given this, there is no possible way for an individual human being to create something that is not foundationally built upon the very things that person is trying to counter.

This is true in so many ways. For example,

By fighting gender oppression in the US, we are accepting as a basis the gender structure that the US maintains, and forming ourselves, our lives and our work around it.

By fighting gender oppression in the US, we are accepting as a basis the social structure that belongs to it, and imposing it on those who live outside of it, living entirely different types of lives under entirely different influences.

But even if we were to (claim that we) forsake that structure and instead build something entirely, completely new — we still begin that structure in the ways we have been taught to build. We still operate together in the ways that we have been taught to operate. We are still using the same language we began with, still interacting by the same patterns we began with.

There is no way to escape a system. Ever.

This means that movements are guaranteed to devolve in certain ways. Guaranteed to commit injustices against the people already beat-upon. Guaranteed to hurt each other, to experience divisions, as time wears on.

***

This does not mean that therefore, organizing is useless. That therefore, movements are worthless.

What it means is that we will perpetrate the worst of sins against our fellow human beings and we must accept that it will happen. We must let go of the idea that we can ever, ever, be free of the virus that infects us. The tighter we cling to it, the more the injustices spiral out of control.

***

I actually think that part of the beauty in life is found in the ways that we build imperfect things upon even more imperfect bases. The way we take things that have myriad problems, and push and shape and coax them into being something new, something entirely different, something existing on its own right — something still imperfect, but deep.

Deep.

Deep, containing multitudes, changed and changed and changing, storied and historied, inconveniences and complications…

We will never create something out of nothing. We will never begin a movement that is brand new, that is pure and free of mistakes at the start.

Perhaps we are better off for it.

***

can I have that kind of history? can I be that kind of complicated? and still be valuable?

***

august 9, 2010

I’ve found over the last few months, my own internal reaction to the same sorts of stimuli is broadly (but slowly) changing.

I’m finding myself more reflective. More peaceful. More generous in consideration.

I’m mulling over things and reaching different sorts of conclusions.

I like these things, because they are pleasant to experience.

But I refuse to think of them as being better. More moral. More right. I refuse to comply with anyone who would expect those things of me, or of anyone else. I refuse to have these things set as ideal, to create them as a standard.

Because this is just another route to edification. To building and sharing and bettering.

The different conclusions I reach mean that I get to internally enjoy a wider range of thought now — not that these conclusions supercede the older. Not that they are “right” and the older “wrong.”

The benefits that I give to others (of the doubt – of kinder, gentler interactions – etc.) are benefit that they do not deserve, and I am not obligated to give. They are benefits, not rights. They are not the right thing to do to one another. They can elicit certain desirable reactions in those others, such as being more likely to listen, more willing to consider my point of view. But I also know that human beings have a hard time changing until they get a spanking. That sometimes, it takes a rough fight for something to click — or for them to understand the importance and necessity of the concepts being communicated to them.

To really grasp the depth.

The right thing to do to another person is to engage with them without oppressing or abusing them.

That is a very wide set of boundaries to set, allowing for a very wide range of interactive approaches.

Including screaming “fuck you” at someone who has hurt you.

Even when they have no contextual understanding of why – or even that — you are hurt.

They don’t have a right to understanding. You have a right to be free from abuse and oppression.

Roughness, on the other hand, is a necessity.

A child might never understand why sie is supposed to avoid the stove if sie is never allowed to experience the pain of the burn.

A person might never understand what’s so bad about what they’re doing if they are never exposed to the pain that they wreak.

Pain is necessary to human experience. Pain is a signal that something is wrong.

***

I’ve made the mistake of trying to protect my husband from ever having to feel bad about anything he had done to hurt me.

I’ve made the mistake of trying to protect my husband from ever being exposed to the pain that I was experiencing.

Because…

Isn’t it just as bad –

Isn’t it equally wrong for me to make him feel pain?

Isn’t it equally bad for me to expose him to that pain?

If he knew that he did something wrong, why did I have to add, for him, guilt and regret on top of knowledge?

If I was hurting inside, then there was already enough pain for the two of us — there’s no need for me to add more pain — right?

Wouldn’t it be cruel of me to reduce my pain by asking him to feel some? Wouldn’t it be highly selfish?

Two wrongs don’t make a right — right?

I’ve made that mistake before. In the end, we almost lost our relationship, and both he and I endured personal (related but separate) traumas — because we were denying each other the privilege of sharing in one another’s burden. (You know, that whole thing monogamous relationships are supposed to be about.) We were trying to shoulder burdens individually, avoiding honest communication that would, yes, cause immediate-term pain, but which would be better for the health of our relationship in the short and long terms.

And I discovered something –

– sometimes, I have to let him feel that pain that exists because of his own actions. I have to let him feel the true weight of it. I have to let him experience the injury of it.

Because if he never feels that pain, he never makes that intuitive connection about why his actions were harmful.

He has to burn his hand to understand that the stove is dangerously hot. He has to feel the searing pain — and he has to work on healing his own wound.

I have to be there with him, through all of it. Be there to hold him up and help him process and recover.

If those things don’t happen — then he cannot be there with me through my troubles. For him to “be there with me,” I have to open up and let him go through the things that I need to “be there with him” for.

One cannot occur without the other.

If even just one of the two doors is closed, nothing can get through.

***

i realized smth abt myself

i shouldn’t let ppl “let me down” bc i shouldnt be expecting them to be perfect allies, a concept i hate applied to me, so why do i apply it to them

they are ppl they will make mistakes they can do hurtful things

but i shuoldnt turn it into a personal slight or a way theyve personally failed me

bc that makes it about a rel’ship btwn 2 ppl and not abt the structural issues and cultural attitudes that need addressed

those attitudes n those structures can be changed

we can work on that w them

not end that conv prematurely to focus on how they failed me…

***

august 11, 2010

I am too tired to write today.

I find myself wishing that I could just step into an alternate life space. Like stepping into clothing. But I would step into being me – the me I want to be. Already have the history, the approach nailed, the habits set, the emotional and communicative vocabulary mastered. Just step into the outfit, zip up the side, and be there.

I can imagine a me who is comfortable, happy, and at peace. Who has interactions she is proud of her behavior in.

It doesn’t mean she’s necessarily going to be the popular kid at school, that everybody is necessarily going to like her. Or that she’ll never have conflict, never be at odds with someone, never have a frustrating exchange that goes nowhere and wears her down.

It just means that she will be calmer. And gravitate toward different modes of conversation. And maintain a different focus.

Then again… can the first ever be true, when the second is allowed for? If people don’t like me, if I have conflicts, if I make mistakes, will I still be happy with myself, and at peace? Will I still stand by my own actions?

***

I realized something else today.

So much of what goes wrong in many of these conversations happens because of inelegant phrasing, misunderstood points, poorly-connected concepts, poorly disclaimed assertions.

So much of what I kick myself over, I do because of these things.

But, I think: I just have a physical disability that sometimes has cognitive symptoms. Sometimes my wording is clunky and I have trouble really communicating my point; I have to beat around the bush and hope that people will look toward the center of my circular path to try to deduce what I am actually trying to say.

I fault myself for those things.

But fuck. Why? Why do I fault myself for that? Why do I accept the standards practiced by wider society, wherein speech must be precise, artfully navigating complicated subjects, or else the speaker cannot be taken seriously and any misunderstandings are hir own fault? Those standards serve to effectively shut out certain people from public conversation. People who lack access to high-quality, long-term education. People who live with learning disabilities or cognitive disorders. People who learned English as a second language. People who speak nondominant dialects of English.

These people will suffer a greater burden under that sort of standard, fighting against constant resistance, dealing with far more misunderstandings and having their arguments endlessly derailed.

All because of an insistence on maintaining this standard built on expectations of a certain ability, a certain background, a certain experience.

and no, I will not apologize for  thinking that is fucked up.

what I will do? is try to put into practice a flexibility, and budget a little more energy toward, as a standard, making sure I am understanding what a person is trying to get across, and allowing room in any response for my reaction to take different direction as my understanding of the conversation adjusts to the person’s expressed meaning.

That does not mean that people can rationalize their way out of saying offensive things.

but… maybe it means I will let go of coming down hard on them, especially from the start. let go of the need to make a Big Deal out of what they just did wrong.

because maybe, I’m not even understanding what they did.

this is something I *hoped* others would apply to me, all along, with my difficulties with spoken/written communication. a benefit I hoped some would offer me.

I don’t think I’ve ever really connected, on that deep-down level, on why, and how, to offer it to others.

and I really need to do that.

I really hope I can do that.

***

I can offer you explanations why I have done certain things.

Why I have rushed to judge people.

Why I have judged people. at all.

Why I have — while knowing I hated the very idea — given in to labeling certain people or groups as Bad People because of certain things they had done wrong.

and discounting everything they say or do from there on out, because of those wrongdoings.

(i will not take argument about the fact that they were, in fact, wrongdoings.)

Why I have invested in “call-out” culture.

Why I have practiced — and propogated — The Rules(TM). the set of laws governing the precise process a person must follow in a given situation. the precise steps they must take. the precise words they must say. the precise reactions they must offer. [sometimes, The Rules(TM) call for a person to offer the "wrong" reaction, instead of the "right" one, so that The People may have a target for blame, feigned righteousness, and ridicule. if the "wrong" reaction is not offered, The People have the right, under The Rules(TM), to make one up wholesale.]

(by the way, what is the definition of “objectification” again? making a living, breathing person into a vessel for someone else’s purposes? … hm.)

gdamn, I am horrified at how I have participated in that culture. and how I have participated in forcing it on others — in completely overtaking a conversation about a concept — sometimes about people’s lives — and turning it into a conversation about how The Rules(TM) have been followed and how they have now.

that shit is poison.

***

I want to believe in redemption. I want to believe in power. the power to improve. the power to stretch, to learn, to grow.

I want to believe in capacity. I want to believe in potential.

I want to be there alongside someone who is pushing and pulling, struggling with new knowledge that they may not have even accepted yet — but often they do accept it, and process and digest it, and over time incorporate it into their daily life…

I hate the way I’ve discounted the very possibility of any of that, sometimes.

I hate the fact that I know I’ve made people feel that way — that their potential is being discounted, that having done one thing wrong means being written off the rolls of the good for eternity.

***

august 12, 2010

written in early june, unfinished (i say that like there’s any other status for anything i write):

Maybe I’m not supposed to say it, but I’ll say it: I regret pretty much everything about my involvement in that Feministing boycott.

Look, it was bullshit. Bullshit what they did, including dropping the “tone” argument (in those words) on me for being mildly assertive. Bullshit that they think a history of five posts that almost all played into exactly the disability tropes we want to deconstruct constitute a history of meaningful engagement with disability. Bullshit that they are OK with having a comment space they don’t want to put the effort into maintaining — leaving it to the wolves.

But here’s what I regret, truly, deeply, to the bottom of my soul:

Getting into the blame-the-individual game.

It honestly eats at me. I hate it. I just hate that I went there. I hate that I did that. I hate it for a variety of reasons.

It sets me, or the criticizer, up as somehow more righteous than they, the people/group being critiqued.

That sets me, the criticizer, up for failure when it is revealed that I am no perfect child myself, and have my own issues and have made my own shitty mistakes.

It makes it difficult to engage with them, the criticized, if they do make a genuine effort at improving, even if they stumble as they navigate new territory (even if it’s territory that shouldn’t be new).

It divides the audience, you, into camps. People on Side A and Side B and over there, people who don’t give a shit about this drama and just wish we’d all shut the fuck up already. (Those people don’t matter.)

It makes the whole conflict into a controversy to be consumed.

And that’s the issue here. That’s what I’ve learned in the intervening time. Either it’s a controversy that can be parsed for the consumption of the hungry masses, those eager to find a way to make a name for themselves — by playing the reasonable one, or by staking out a righteous position — and those who are just using your issue to settle old grudges … or it’s nothing.

Either it can be consumed as a product, a way to prove something about yourself, the bystander, the individual — or it’s not worth any attention at all.

Pay no mind that the struggles of marginalized people every day go on in ways that are not easy to gin up into “controversy” — ways that are messy, difficult, not easy to navigate — but because they are not of use to the observing masses, for the personal betterment of the people unaffected, they aren’t even worth more than glancing observance. Onto the next Gawker slideshow.

***

I think part of the reason I tended so much toward a flip of a finger and a “fuck you” was because I didn’t know how to assert my own boundaries.

I didn’t know how to say “This is more than I can handle,” or “You have crossed a line,” and add, “but I cannot articulate what or why right now, and I should not have to” … while still being ok with what parts of the conversation were OK, and perhaps (but not required to be) OK with addressing those without addressing the bad parts.

Part of why I would start flipping out and go into pile-on mode is because someone crossed a line, and I had these intense feelings of violation inside me, but to acknowledge all the other parts of the conversation that didn’t cross a line felt like it would be denying, to myself, the feelings that I had. That were very real.

And what I have desperately needed, all my life, is realness.

To deny those feelings would be to deny my very self, my very being, my very existence in reality (as opposed to dissociated ether).

It would be a violent act against my own body, and I could not do it.

But I couldn’t identify that boundary. I just… knew it was there, and had this hot, intense, wordless instinct/impulse/inner knowledge that I could not violate it, that to violate it would be as to death. Just that incredible, deep, burning feeling of being trapped, knowing something is threatening your life. What do you do to that? Except lash out, beat out, violently thrash about in a thoughtless attempt to survive, without even having the time to know what it is that is threatening you?

I feel now, like… I see something that crosses one of those lines, and my heart wells up in my throat and I feel the burning behind my eyes, but my self-awareness is on, and I can stop to consider what it is that is bothering me, and what it is that seems wrong, and evaluate the idea and its validity, and possibly engage it on non-flipping-out terms.

I’ve also started asserting, to myself more than anyone?, my right to not engage on things that I know threaten my being that way.

Like when I’m this close to committing suicide, I had offered thoughts on a touchy subject, and someone responds to it in a way I can already tell is not going to be pleasant for me.

I can respect that person, and know that she was probably, actually, making some good points (while I might have disagreed with her on a fundamental basis, or had a different perspective) and important pushback. But still acknowledge that this discussion threatens my being and just stay away. Click away or scroll away from any mention of it, stick with things I know I can handle.

I never used to be able to do  that. To stop. And assert that boundary.

If I felt connected to something — a person was saying something directly to me, or it was something relating to me the person, or something which is of deep and far-reaching importance to me — I felt… not obligated… but drawn, strongly to engage with it. Even if it was something that was going to upset me during a dangerous time. Even if it was something that had a good possibility of crossing certain lines. Even if it was a person I knew was acting in bad faith, or just plain known for being intentionally difficult and cruel. My attention was just… a given, something that wasn’t even under consideration, of course I had to pay fucking attention, and possibly put in my two cents. Usually in one of those nefarious tones.

I could not look away. Boundaries were extremely difficult for me to manage. Extremely difficult to make myself create them, and maintain them. Tending to them, caring for them — out of the question, because I was terrified of them.

I’m learning, slowly.

And I think it will be better for me, in managing my relationship with my peers and community members.

***

august 13, 2010

focus on language can be a learning phase for ppl new to the movement/concept of disability rights

we shouldn’t focus on it to the exclusion of all else, but it is a subject that newly-political folk can cut their teeth on, a way for them to get used to disability centered analysis, and talk of it should not be suppressed

tabs otoh need to leave language alone, because no matter what when they speak up to enforce good words/bad words, they are participating in a diluted/lite version of dis. activism that refuses to go any further than the safe and easy parts for them to modify, in a way that helps them make a name for themselves as “true allies”, again taking the entire focus off the conversation about any number of things affecting disabled ppl, and again making tabs dominate conv. (now instead of being about whatever topic, including disabled ppl talking abt their lives, it’s a tab person talking over everyone about whether or not some person said a bad word)

language is important, but language should not supercede all other concerns.

tabs need to let the disabled ppl talk about language, let them be the ones to decide when a word or phrase is harmful, let them be the ones to point it out in the situations they decide are appropriate. if they want to support pwd in this matter, they should not talk about it themselves, but should lift up and promote the works of pwd who talk about it. rather than talking themselves, they should reference and direct other people to the works of pwd.

***

I’ve been struggling to make sense of everything that is going on in my head, that has been going on for months.

There are so many changes I want to make. Part of why I try not to run around declaring my intent to make them is because I have to identify them first; I have to figure out what’s wrong before I can figure out how to make it right. Sometimes it takes me months of shaking things around inside my head to get some of those ideas to fall out my mouth in words rather than lurching gibberish.

But part of it is, as I wrote a little while ago:

Right now I am trying to refocus. To take a look over my activism and engagement. And seeing shit I’m embarrassed about. And hate myself for. And want to change.

But as my husband and I have done in the past: don’t make promises that you will change. Because what matters is that you do. And you can’t guarantee that you will. So I would rather you just hold your arm around me and stumble forward with me. And work on your shit. We will only ever know if the other is going to change once that change is put into effect. That takes years. Years.

Years.

***

I wonder sometimes whether we do injustice to the whole picture of people’s lives by trying to make judgments narrow slivers of their experience.

It manifests itself in the way we try to slice out human experience like we do sections of beef. The way people are easily __categorized__ into binary states of being, into neatly-delineated pre-set __identities__, the way those identities can never combine into something different than the simple sum of their parts, but must be as easy to understand as the addition of single-digit whole numerals.

But another way it manifests is in the way that we judge people’s actions.

The way it’s “just as bad” when the woman beats back on the man. (to the point that hetero women often get arrested for DV because their abuser knows its another avenue to abuse them. case in point, my sister with her ex-marine husband with a buddy in the system.)

because when you look at one narrow slice of that person’s life: yeah, the pure act is “just as bad” no matter who does it.

The way DV victims will often not let on that they are being abused to the people around them — family, friends, teachers, coworkers — because they know of the swift and unequivocal condemnations of the insidious beast that is that person’s partner.

because in a situation of your hypothetical het man and your hypothetical het woman, in your stereotypical het relationship, it is understood that abuse happens because a person is evil and malevolent and mean and there can be no room for any other facts.

but what happens when you step back? and look at the whole?

that woman is looking, not at a narrow slice of a hypothetical situation with imaginary people. she is looking at her life, her real life, in all its complexities. she’s looking at the things that her partner does that endears him to her, or the history they have together, or the fact that he is working his ass off to keep her and the family fed, or the way he stays at a job that is killing him because they need the health insurance it offers, or the sweet things he does for the kids.

Or maybe none of that is true, maybe there really isn’t much positive in the relationship, but it’s fucking HERS.

And to have someone loudly, unhesitantly condemn that? and if she squeaks a single word in protest of that condemnation — or simply lets on to the complexity of the situation as a whole, the conflicted feelings she has about it? what do people do?

they call her brainwashed, battered wife syndrome, inexplicable. No one would have “abuse” happen and rationally choose to stay.

and maybe all this does is just solidify her devotion to him. or to silence. because it’s just been demonstrated to her, that no one else is on her side, either.

just the side of that imaginary hypothetical stereotypical person.

no place is really safe for her. the real, true being, her. everything encompassing all that she is, and does, and feels, and lives. no one accepts that. only the pieces of her that they like, that are convenient to them — that they can use for their purposes (proving to themselves a point about their own lives, or a stereotype about abuse victims as a group).

She is a slice of a person, a sliver of an experience that we the community can extract from her, to inspect and analyze, to hold up to make a point off of. She is just a piece, a section, a portion. Not a life, a living being, a breathing throbbing soul, a person with her own experience that is made of her own history and her own personality, that is completely and totally different from anyone elses.

But we have grown comfortable with this practice, taking that huge and complicated beautiful mess of a life and narrowing our focus in to one tiny spot in its landscape, and have entire conversations about this one little tree without ever one acknowledging the huge and intricate ecosystem in which and on which it survives. Whether that system is thriving or deprived and dying makes a big difference in what conclusions to draw about that tree, but we never want to acknowledge the rest of the expanses of that whole landscape, that whole picture, that whole being. That would complicate things.

To an extent, simplification is a tool that can be put to useful ends, but it is one of many, many tools in the chest, and we should caution ourselves about its drawbacks, about the costs that come with using it. Right now, we seem to be using it while pretending that there are no costs. And vast swathes of living breathing landscapes are scrubbed out of existence and we wonder why the tree starts dying.

***

There’s something else that I think is highly important to any healthy community, or movement, that slips through the cracks when we engage in this narrowing of focus, this eliding of — not just context, that’s not really the concept I’m going for here — but wholeness…

That is, in any conversation on any issue there is going to be a lot of pushing, and pulling, and tension, and conflict, and difficulty. It is going to result in strained patience, hot faces, teary eyes, and sore feelings. And these things need not always be. There is no reason to create them where they would not otherwise occur. The things, themselves, are not necessarily valuable in and of themselves. But they can be symptoms of healthy change.

What we need when we talk about issues affecting real lives is for the conversation to be bursting with a wealth of different focuses, different approaches, different goals, different methods.

We need people to be “reasonable” and to try to reconcile our ideals with the reality of the world. We need people to figure out how to implement these ideas we have, and how things might go wrong in doing so, and what issues might come up in doing so, and how we might address those things if they do.

We need people pushing back strongly against those who would strike out middle ground and forge compromise, reminding them of what they might forget in their focus on the achieving the possible. We need people who will cry out against injustices, no matter how it might offend those outside, and people who will take middle-grounders to task for the things their movement-programs fail to address.

We need people who will do diplomacy to people outside, who will try to introduce them to easy topics, try to wean them onto a diet of political awareness, try to frame things in a way that they will understand, try to find ways to convince them how this issue is relevant to them. We need people who will be kind and gentle, who are there with reassuring words to fall back on when they make a mistake, and positive reinforcement when they do something right.

We need people who are harsh and grounded and ready to make clear those same outsiders exactly the greusome realities they have a role in creating. We need people who are hardened and unsympathetic, who are credibly able to make an uncooperative outsider’s day quite unpleasant if they choose to engage in bigotries.

We need people who will explore the boundaries of the conversation, searching for new frontiers, pushing into places that are uncomfortable, unsettling.

We need people who know how to get shit done to keep everyone fed and clothed and sheltered and stimulated. We need people who know how to work the system, and we need people who know how to work around the system.

All of these things get lost when the conversation, instead, becomes focus on one tool in our toolbox. One very narrow method or process, one particular style or approach, one device, one instrument, one tool in the enormous toolchest of relationships or organizing or community building. When one style of speech is condemned, or one point of view is diminished, or one way of accomplishing something is held up as exemplary.

Because when you are looking at a cropped picture of something, it might look bad. It might look insufficient to reach its stated end goal, or it might look unpleasant in the absence of context.

But when you widen your view to include the entire scene, that act might change in connotation. It might not be perfect, and might not accomplish everything. But it serves a purpose that perhaps wasn’t being addressed. It fills a need that might have gone unfilled. It shapes a space in a slightly different way. And perhaps we couldn’t move forward, in the original space. Perhaps we were smacking up against the boundaries we had created before, and finding our needs growing all the while.

Maybe it takes a lot of different approaches to help shape our space the way it needs to be.

Maybe we never fully understand what we need, and constantly have to make adjustments, and find ways to accomplish a reshaping, to account for newly gained knowledge.

maybe we all serve different roles. and maybe we all need to realize that the role we fill cannot fill the needs of our entire community. that our role is very important, but at the same time, so are the other sorts of roles people fill that are different than ours. and that personally, we might not fully understand where they are coming from or how they go about things, but we must realize the unfortunate limits of our own individual imaginations and allow for the possibilities of the collective imagination.

of course, what we collectively imagine is subject to a lot of push and pull, teem and throb…

***

we need people who can write reasoned, objective analysis.

we need people who can write impassioned pleas, and compelling attempts to persuade.

we need people who can bring deeply-felt emotion, who can get across the importance of a situation, or the true effects something has on a living breathing life.

and we need people who can write from experience, who can tell personal stories, who can convey humanity.

***

august 15, 2010

scribbled on a notepad on my bedside table, in the dark

putting

things in stark terms

overusing as a device

people get distracted

i can be more

– generous? –

neutral in

explanation

to give greater number of people access to my analysis

then again, over-

reliance on “reason”

logic neutral objective etc.

shuts out many

marginalized people too

discussion approach

centering around preferences of dominant group not

needs of marginalized group

speaks to necessity of

many approaches

& space for multiple

& variant conversations

not all needs can

be served with one

approach

choosing just one

as the only “good” or

allowable approach

means explicitly

rejecting certain

people’s place in

any conversation.

***

I do feel highly uncomfortable with my own overreliance on stark, unforgiving terms.

I want people to give me room to breathe, room to work, in any interaction. Because I want to be able to learn something from it. That doesn’t mean that any wrongs are ignored, or immediately forgiven. It means that sometimes, the shape of the conversation changes, when the focus narrows on a specific part of  the interaction, when there is a whole wealth of material and opportunity to explore in the greater conversation.

I want to explore. I want to discover. I want to pursue a politics rooted in wholeness.

***

I want to be someone who recognizes and acknowledges the whole of a person.

We cannot live for so long as we are chopped up into conveniently-sized portions for the consumption of others.

***

I’m wondering about the way I interact withmy communities.

I’m thinking about the structure of internet activism and the incentives it creates for bad behavior, abuse, manipulation.

I’m thinking about the way that every group is, in some way, an enormous failure. The way disability organizing is overwhelmingly white, for instance.

No matter how radical any group is, they are limited. Humanity is limited. It can only understand things through lenses, and no lens can take in the whole of a scene at one time.

We are all limited by the lenses we use.

If we are looking through an anti-racist lens in the US (and I mainly mean the lens that white folk use),

we are probably eliding the structure of racial inequities in the world as a whole. We are applying the structure of the US racial system to our thoughts and actions elsewhere in the world — even when we are trying our hardest not to.

If we are looking through a disability-positive lens,

we are probably assuming certain things about society where we live that may not be true in societies across the world. How would disability activism change in an area where there are no modern streets to worry about curb cuts? How would we re-focus and  re-center the people affected? Would we be able to?

Every lens skews the view of the person looking through it. And we cannot see without those lenses.

I’m thinking about how even some of our most venerated leaders held considerable prejudice, and advocated for the “wrong” side of certain issues.

About how Obama seems to be personally uncomfortable with queerness, and is deporting great masses more people under his administration than

About how Gandhi wrote against dark-skinned people in South Africa in his early years there.

About how important it becomes to us to deny that there is any possibility Martin Luther King, Jr. might have personally disapproved of gay marriage, regardless of what he may have thought himself (point being, if he were shown to inarguably believe in the rights of gay folk too, we would clutch tightly to that — and that is indicative of something).

About how we fashion our leaders into idols. About how we strip them of their humanity, scrub them clean of any blemishes, cover them in white virgin cloth, and freeze them in stone, so that we can display them to the public as a point of righteous pride.

I am also thinking about the way these shining idols shape the way we view each other.

I’m thinking about how I would see a person, and expect them to be close to perfect. And when they failed on one thing, grow immensely disappointed with them and feel as if I have been betrayed. As if they were lying to me about their perfection. That they probably never claimed, but that I wrote in for them.

What good does this do me? To expect nothing but the best, find out that these human beings are human, and feel that I must disassociate myself with them to protect my own image (of myself)?

It doesn’t leave me with a lot of people to associate with, I’ll tell you.

***

Does it count as depression when you know you’re too emotionally tired to go any further, and you just want to go to bed now to avoid the mood down-swing you can feel coming, but when you look at the clock it’s only 4pm?

***

for a long time, I have been creeped out by a certain type of person in the blogosphere.

for a while now, I’ve been hating and fearing the times I know I’ve played that type.

it’s the person who is there for every fight. there for every drama.

the person who’s got the gossip on all the parties and can report on the game.

the person who has to take every drama and analyze it to death. has to give the play-by-play and offer commentary on every little move. where so-and-so went wrong here, said a Bad Word there, broke The Rules(TM) over there. where so-and-so followed The Rules(TM) well here and you all should observe so-and-so’s example.

the person who can always fit an incident into a convenient narrative mold, shove it in as tight as you can and pop! out comes the pre-shaped narrative. the person who can always find a way to create two clearly defined and opposite sides, and set up the argument in such a way that the Right Side and the Wrong Side are easy to deduce if you know The Rules(TM).

the person who hangs around like a vulture, waiting for someone to slip up, trip up, fuck up — so they can pounce, and pop them in the mold, and serve up the resulting conveniently-shaped thing for the public to devour.

consume.

the person who knows the right words to repeat, and the right people to suck up to.

the person who knows how to network. how to build a following.

the person whose interactions in the community always seem to come down to winning. being the best activist. the most perfectest. the best “ally.”

and it just feels weird because they sau all the right words along the way, but ultimately it feels like … they aren’t in it because they care about the issues they’re talking about. they’re talking about those issues so that they can be in it.

and seem to get so excited when something new erupts. because it’s not a clear sign that there is some pretty tough pain going on. it’s a clear sign that there’s a new drama to reputationally profit off of.

***

you know when this finally came to head for me?

that big fucking feministing blow-up. (which one, you ask, and i say exactly)

i regret ever getting involved.

i regret it deep down to my bones.

ever since it happened i’ve been withdrawing further and further, because i saw some ugly shit in that, and what did it result in? what good became of it?

i came to distrust a lot of people after that because they kind of… disappeared… after the drama was gone.

there were people who were glad to talk the drama, but weren’t there for the quiet moments when we were talking about something that couldn’t be played against someone else…

that was unsettling.

and i started examining exactly what was unsettling me

and over time i’ve come to realize – it’s my involvement in the first place.

the fact that i stood up and “called out” someone

the fact that i got into the realm of blaming individuals, shaming individuals for being *ist, and therefore Bad People who shouldn’t be listened to by the wider community because their reputation was tainted

that game is poison.

“calling out” and categorizing people by their perfection-in-my-area quotient and demanding that they repeat after me the Right Words they were supposed to say, that they follow The Rules(TM) to the letter or have their misstep (or conscious refusal to play the game) used against them, used as examples of their bad faith.

it’s poison.

it kills communities.

it eats them from the inside out.

***

august 16, 2010

I don’t know if this place has anything for me anymore.

If I have anything for it.

I don’t know if I have anything left to say.

and I’m tired of fighting.

and I think I need to just let go.

let go of my idea of community, of relationships.

just stand on my box on the street corner, and speak.

and once the words have left my mouth, let them go.

let the world do with them what they want.

So many obligations are heaped on the shoulders of women, and it is pretty much impossible to fulfill all of them even if you completely neglect your own needs. Of course, trying to tend to your own needs means even fewer of those obligations fulfilled, and there are cries and admonishment of selfishness and failure and responsibility to others waiting for you should you assert your right to self-care, because by asserting the right to take time and energy exclusively for yourself, you are stealing time and energy that belongs to others.

Sleep is a contested act in American society (perhaps in others too, but I can only speak to the US): getting little of it becomes a point of pride; getting a lot of it is a symbol of laziness, selfishness, sloth, dirtiness, carelessness. People are expected to perform amazing tasks on as little sleep as possible, which is completely counterintuitive, because most people are going to perform worse with insufficient sleep — consider it a generalized manifestation of the supercrip phenomenon: exactly the people who are least supported/enabled to do something are the ones who are expected to do it better than normal people.

Better sleep would surely benefit many of us, but why?

According to Leive and Huffington, the main benefits realized are in service of others; the main beneficiaries are the people around you. Or, if you see the benefits, they are benefits that stem from an obligation to others, any self-benefit remaining firmly subordinate to the “greater good” of one’s family, colleagues and community members.

We should be well familiar with the concept of women as public property. Women’s bodies, women’s time, women’s possessions, women’s decisionmaking capacity, women’s self-determination — just about anything a woman possesses, though she doesn’t really possess. Rather, she is allowed use of something that is under her care but not her ownership: it belongs instead to the people around her.

Feminists are familiar with the idea that our society considers female reproductive organs to be public property. A woman’s vagina should be available for all comers (men), and simultaneously be unavailable so as not to waste its value to its eventual sole owner (a man). A woman’s uterus is to be used for the good of the human species/civilized society: the right kind of women are to reproduce as much as possible, so that their kind remain the dominant group in both pure numbers and in overall power. (On the other hand, the other kinds of women are called upon to perform the rough, menial work necessary to uphold modern society, while not polluting the human species by reproducing themselves.)

But honestly, public ownership of women extends so much further than their reproductive systems.

No woman is allowed to assume ownership of any part her physical self, her time or purpose: it is still an “indulgence” for a woman to eat anything more substantial than a leaf of lettuce, still “sinful” to enjoy less than 100 calories of overprocessed puddings and crackers. It is still somehow selfish to take a long bath or to sit and rest for an hour’s time, still slothful to refrain from moving, working, pushing, rushing every single moment of every day.

Women’s work, in general, is under-valued and un(der)paid — and it is uncompensated precisely because women’s time, their energy, their effort, do not actually belong to the women themselves, but rather to the rest of the world. It is theirs to use whenever, however, and however much they wish, and isn’t it ridiculous to suggest they should pay for the use of something that belongs to them in the first place?

This is all part and parcel of living in a patriarchy, a predictable result when society relies upon a person’s gender to determine hir position in society, the things sie will do, the roles sie will play, the direction hir life will take. But gender is not the only variant in play here. In fact, I believe that gender is actually secondary here to another factor — it is merely one avenue of manifestation for our cultural construction of health.

Surely you have heard of the theory that gender is not an inherent trait, but a performance. This theory is definitely not without flaws, but I bring it up in hopes that it provides a familiar framework for a discussion on the social construction of health.

Health, you see, is not merely an inherent trait. Health, instead, emcompasses a variety of factors, including a person’s intrinsic qualities but also the environment in which they operate and their everyday behaviors.

Health is not just what a person is. Health is also what a person does. And what drives a person to do something is not wholly internal, but rather is largely influenced by external factors.

Gender, for instance, is both an internal sense of being and something we do for other people, something we do because we want other people to think about us, react to us, in certain ways. And the things we do, and the expected reactions to them, are different depending on which culture we are operating in — dependent on where we live, on our ethnicity, on our class background, on any number of other things. What it means to wear certain types of clothing is different in different cultures. What it means to speak a certain way is different in different cultures. And so on.

This framework is — I hope — useful for understanding what health actually is.

The form “health” takes is different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

The ultimate importance of that so-defined “health” is different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

The role “health” plays in the culture, what “health” means in that culture, the way the people of that culture interact or engage with that idea of “health,” are different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

What you do to achieve “health” is different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

How your health affects your position in life, your economic opportunities, the support that is offered for you to live the kind of life you desire, are all different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

(And yes, all of this is just as true in a culture that makes use of the scientific method and sees itself as cool and rational. What is investigated, and how, and how the results are interpreted, and what lessons are drawn from those results, and how those lessons are applied in everyday life — all these things must grow out of the culture they happen in! )

Health, then, is not merely a personal state, but rather a cultural fulfillment. Health (of whatever kind) is expected of you, expected by the people around you. Your health is not your own, but instead belongs to your family, your community and your wider culture. You must achieve and maintain (whatever kind of) health, not because it benefits you personally, but because you will have deeply failed your fellow members of society if you don’t.

And this is what underlies the problematic aspect of Leive and Huffington’s statements. They are not suggesting that the sleep deficit for women is a problem because the woman herself feels fatigue or cognitive dysfunction. They are suggesting that the sleep deficit for women is a problem because the woman cannot fulfill the expectations of health — and the performance of duties that rely on that state of health — that society has for her. They are suggesting that the sleep deficit for women is a problem because then that woman personally fails her family, community and country.

Here, then, her lack of sleep lays bare her duty to society based on particular qualities she holds. But the disparity between her duty and her male peer’s duty would not exist if all of us did not have a duty to society to achieve and maintain a certain kind of health.

And Leive and Huffington, purporting to be advocating on women’s behalf, do nothing but reinforce the same system that screws women disproportionately when they center a woman’s obligations to the people around her over the personal experience of the woman herself.

And here, I hope, feminists will understand what disability activists mean when we talk about the supposed obligation of mentally ill people to submit to (certain kinds of) treatment for the sake of the rest of society — or what fat acceptance activists mean when we talk about the supposed obligation of all people to be as thin as possible for the sake of the rest of society — and so on.

Eating “healthy” (as determined by mainstream cultural wisdom, largely controlled by wealthy white temporarily-abled folk) is not done solely for oneself. Neither is “exercise” (of course, what counts as physical-activity-that-improves-health is controlled by the same people who control what counts as food-that-improves-health). Participation in the paid workforce is not done solely for oneself — we are, in part, fulfilling the obligation of “responsibility” (which is a component of the health performance, because when health is lacking, the ability to work declines — so work, then, is a demonstration that you are fulfilling your health obligation).

When a person neglects to fill a health-related obligation, there is someone there to remind them of the cost to the rest of society. We’ve all heard figures on the cost of obesity, the cost of heart problems, the cost of low employment rates, the cost of suboptimal nutrition, the cost of insufficient sexual education, the cost of lost sleep… wait, that sounds familiar. Anyway, the cost might be in dollar figures, might be in time lost, might be in persons participating in x activity, or might be more intangible: work decisions, relationship challenges, judgment, problem-solving, creativity… wait a second, didn’t we just hear that? Oh yeah.

And that’s what’s wrong with this angle. Ladies, you are hurting your families! You are failing your communities! You’re dragging all of society down with you! When all you have to do is get an extra hour of sleep — seriously, how selfish are you, staying up to get the dishes clean after your kids have gone to bed so that they’ll have clean bowls to eat cereal out of in the morning?

Except that the entire reason women are getting less sleep than they need is because they’re busy fulfilling their obligations to the rest of the world. The entire reason women are getting less sleep than they need is because they’re required to be well enough to handle multiple shifts, every single day, for their entire adult lives. The entire reason women are getting less sleep than they need is because they’re required to get up at stupid o’clock every morning to handle all the things they’re required to do before going to work (including the obligations to project an image of “health” — to look and smell fresh and clean, to be sufficiently hair-free, to wear attractive clothing, to possibly spend time putting on a face full of makeup and making her hair look presentable — all which are wrapped up in appearing healthy to the people around you), and when they get home from work they still have to do the laundry and make the dinner and wash the dishes and pick up the floor and wipe down the kitchen and bathroom counters and possibly wrangle kids or partners all the while –

– and then they are getting chided by self-proclaimed women’s advocates because they spend too much time doing things for other people, and not enough time doing things for oneself… for… other people…

And it’s impossible to separate the demands of womanhood from the demands of ability. It’s difficult to differentiate the hierarchy of value imposed on people of different genders from the hierarchy of value imposed on people of differing abilities.

I’m sure you get, by now, how women get completely and utterly screwed in this situation. But I invite you to imagine, then, how disabled people get completely and utterly screwed by this situation — and then I invite you to imagine how a system that did not value people differently due to their differing abilities would also remove a lot of the pressure that is currently dumped on women.

A system of equal access, opportunity, value, for people of all types of abilities, would be radically better for people currently oppressed under this gender-based system.

And when you reinforce the ability-based system of oppression, you make things worse for the women living under it.

… just sayin’.

(Cross-posted at FWD/Forward.)

From the O-R: K***** Y****, 13, and his sisters K****, 9, and K********, 4, tend to their patch of tomatoes this afternoon at (the garden)… K***** also is a garden guardian who waters all of the plants on a regular basis.

Look familiar? My thoughts are conflicted in that post, about the real root (so to speak) of our modern issues with connection to our earth, but make no mistake: this garden is an unequivocal positive for the people who use it, and it makes me inordinately happy that it is here.

There are two things going on here:

* Professor Gates, who has a cane so that he can move independently, could probably have made it down the stairs on his own. That’s not to say without pain or difficulty — but he wasn’t helpless. The reaction to this photo presupposes that the crippled man must be completely unable to help his own damn self, and that it is noble when the able-bodied officer presumes to “help” him. Do you see what this does? It removes Prof. Gates as an agent; it makes him, instead, an agency-less object, existing for the purpose of the able-bodied man: this time, as a signifier of character (taking on that noble burden).

* Speaking of noble burdens: the race of the men involved cannot be ignored. Sgt. Crowley is a white man helping a crippled man. In the right wing’s reading of this photo, Sgt. Crowley becomes a symbol of whiteness: an example of the way in which white men are Good, in which Good is defined as the way white men do things. Think boot straps: this fantastical myth is all about the inherent goodness of the white man, who does things the right way, in contrast with the minorities, who are too lazy, selfish, etc. to bother. Sgt. Crowley presuming to help Prof. Gates stands in contrast with President Obama, who is walking ahead, minding his own business. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is seen directly in front of the white man taking on the noble burden, and thus becomes an indictment on the character of the shiftless, self-absorbed black man.

Who was it for?

Of course it was reported as a sort of reconciliation: a way to help Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley make up. But that wasn’t what it was.

To sum: Prof. Gates arrived home after a long and tiring flight, and couldn’t get in his house. Someone called the police, thinking that a stranger was breaking into his home. Police arrive when Prof. Gates was already in his home and calling a locksmith. Prof. Gates shows ID to Sgt. Crowley proving this is his home, may have been “belligerent” in doing so. Sgt. Crowley responds by luring him to his front porch, where he is handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct. Outrage ensues; charges are dropped. (Police insist the original caller reported that black men were breaking in; recordings prove that she said nothing about race at all.)

Journalist asks Obama about this during a health care press conference. Obama says a few predictable, innocuous things, then says that it is obvious that the police “acted stupidly” in arresting Prof. Gates in his own home for no crime committed, then makes a simple comment about the inarguable history of racial profiling in this country.

Sgt. Crowley objects loudly, saying the President is “way off base.” Sgt. Crowley is obviously very upset, and the police force is standing in solidarity with him. The country is beginning to criticize Obama for admitting the troublesome racial aspects of the story; the conventional wisdom is becoming that Obama bit off more than he could chew in “bringing race into this” — and white America will make sure that he is taken down a notch for it.

So Obama invites the two men to the White House for a beer. The country reacts with mild derision — but the attacks begin to fade. The issue is neutralized.

See what’s going on here? White man does something unfair to black man. Black man protests that this was unfair. White man’s sensibilities are offended at the accusation that he could ever be An Unfair-ist, makes this into an argument about whether or not he is a Good Man (being unfair would necessitate that he is a Bad Man). All his friends know that he is, in fact, a Good Man, and they stand up to say as much. Black man looks around, realizes that the numbers are not on his side. That everyone has ignored the unfair way he was treated, and his family and friends have been treated throughout history. That there is unrest among them, and he may face very real consequences if he presses the issue any further.

So the black man backs down. Makes conciliatory noises. To soothe the white man’s feelings. So that the white man won’t cause him any more trouble.

What was this beer summit about? Did Obama really think he was going to solve the issue of racial profiling and police officers behaving unethically by inviting two men out for a beer? Of course he didn’t. That wasn’t the purpose.

The purpose was to get the offended white man (and his white friends) to shut up and stop causing the black men trouble.

And I don’t blame him.

Quick, think of a disease or condition that affects only men and is considered by a large portion of the population to be fake, created by the pharmaceutical industry, or psychosomatic.  *Sound of crickets.*

An excellent look at the gendered construction of medical conditions at the Women’s Sports Blog.

Most of the language about credulous patients being duped by Big Pharma is directed at women and conditions they suffer from disproportionately.  Women are, after all, emotional and have the ability to create amazing physical symptoms solely from their minds.  At the same time, women’s bodies are considered to be in a constant state of abnormality relative to men’s bodies.  The word ‘hysteria’ is etymologically related to the Latin word for uterus, which was long considered to be the site of women’s mental health problems, and hence its removal is called a hysterectomy [...]

‘Just get out and exercise’ or ‘just change your diet’ is fairly lousy advice for anyone who hasn’t been able to get out of bed. But as a society we still maintain the illusion that changes in hormones, brain chemistry, or the like are failures of self-control or willpower.

She also discusses the disproportionate burden laid on mothers of disabled children. Read the whole thing.

Part I: The Personal

Note: I’m going somewhere with this. Please keep your mind open as you read, because I will be coming back in Part II with a concept that may seem to conflict with your initial reading of Part I. Thanks.

Understanding my background is essential to understanding my understanding of these things. And so we go.

My brothers and sister, between them, share two diagnoses of bipolar disorder, one of schizophrenia, two of those with psychosis, and all three have severe depression and/or generalized anxiety disorder. That is only what has been diagnosed by mental health professionals — D* was only diagnosed by way of being taken to prison and has not seen a doctor otherwise in decades.

My mother never saw a mental health professional and never will, but she shares most of the symptoms my siblings display, and my own mental health professionals have agreed with me that if there is a diagnosis to give her (with all requisite caveats), it would be borderline personality disorder.

1.

My brother D* had the worst situation of the family. He was the first to go to jail: when he was taken to court for some sort of licensing issue, he refused to give his name. Wouldn’t speak. And so they put him in jail. And he stayed there for eight months before relenting so that he could just go home.

How long would you stay in jail for a principle?

My family was religious, each member to varying degrees — but their idea of religiosity was, to say the least, a somewhat unique form of the faith practiced by their fellow churchgoers. D* was probably the least religious of any of us. But he still had his ideas.

According to him, the “self” is a thing, not a person. When you refer to your self, you are not referring to you the person, but a thing that the government created so that they could have control over you. Because in Genesis, God gave man dominion over all things of the earth, but not over man. So the government devised the “self” so that they could claim control over people.

According to him, the reason we have a “driver license” instead of a “drivers license” is because in actuality there is only one person, and we are all franchised out from that person, which the government created sometime in the nineteenth century and none of us has been a person ever since. This is called “novation.”

Also, we are all “resident aliens,” because the state owns all land, meaning we are not residents but aliens on the very land we reside on.

Also, when you write your name in all capital letters, that is representative of the “self” that the government owns. Which is why names are printed in all-capitals on our birth certificates, so that the government has official control over you. So never, ever print your name in all capitals, because that means you are officially giving your “self” over to the government, and this may even be the Mark of the Beast.

It was that latter that probably got him in trouble with the court.

These were regular topics of conversation at family gatherings. I remember the Thanksgiving dinner when he gave me my first lecture on novation. I was seven or eight years old, I think. He grabbed a piece of copy paper and drew a diagram for me. I don’t know what else to say but that the diagram showed the inner workings of a mind that works in a completely different way. It wasn’t nonsense. It had logic to it, but it was its own logic — not the logic most of you are used to using.

These ideas were not a hobby for D*; they were his world view, they were primary, his truest beliefs, and he lived his life according to them.

2.

My oldest brother, G*, was born in the late 1950s, when my mother was sixteen. She was publicly kicked out of her church and her parents became hostile, leaving her with one person to rely on — her boyfriend, the father of her child. He became my mother’s first husband. Thus began her adult life. D* would come along a few years later, then my sister, whom I called Sissie.

Her husband was extremely abusive. He had very sketchy friends and apparently some involvement in certain anti-government movements in Canada. He would drug my mother and invite his friends over. He beat her to near-death a couple of times — then went into the children’s rooms, where they were aware something bad was going wrong, and calmly informed them that if they tried to help their mother, he would kill them.

My brothers have related to me the time that D* chased G* down in the back yard with a butcher’s knife — angrily — with full intent to kill him — he had feelings of inferiority under his brother. Their father broke it up when D* was on top of G*, gave them both a good beating and a good threat or two. This is how my siblings grew up.

When my brothers were in their teenage years, he died in a motorcycle crash. My sister was a bit younger, and she has recalled crying in class when the news was brought to her. But all three of them agree now that they’re glad it happened. It freed the family.

I would come along much later, by a different father, who gave my mother the choice of getting an abortion or hitting the road. She hit the road, had me at age 43, and went on to raise me alone.

3.

I grew up in a toxic family dynamic. That may be the most respectful way to describe it.

I could write a novel’s worth about my relationship with my mother. It was one of extreme emotional dependence — both ways when I was a young child — only one way when I grew older and tried to stake out small bits of independence. The more independent I became, the more intense her emotional stronghold on me, the more insidious her tactics to keep me in the reins.

My relationship with my mother was quite happy until, maybe, age twelve or so. She was sweet and caring and supportive. She encouraged me in my talents, gave me plenty of hugs and kisses, shared laughter with me… I could relate with her, I could talk with her, I could play and have fun with her.

But when I approached that age — when I began to explore my own identity, when I pulled away from her a mere inch — suddenly I felt the grip tighten — and that hug became a hold. And there was less playing, less fun. Suddenly — in very subtle ways — she began to turn on me.

4.

There may have been a time when my relationship with my mother was one of friends. But my relationship with my siblings has always been one of enemies.

My siblings were all a generation older than I, married, with children. G* and D* lived with their respective families in the two towns I grew up in, in the Central Valley. My sister lived on the northern border of Oregon, near Portland — where my mother was living when I was conceived. We didn’t get to see her family very often; once a year when we were lucky.

I was always the outsider. My brothers and sister grew up together. In a totally different world. They were decades older. Different life stages. They had come a long way, and I was just arriving on the scene.

A toxic dynamic developed, where I was the young, stupid, spoiled, care-free little thing that was getting off too easy in life. And this threatened them. They went through hell as children, but here they were, struggling, but making a life for themselves. And I was their little sister. But my life was totally divorced from theirs, a totally different realm. One they feared was rising above them.

So they had to tear me down.

And that’s what I experienced growing up. As young as I can remember. I would be trying to disappear into the couch at G*’s house as my brothers and mother commiserated about how totally wrong I was, lectured me on how things really were, agreed that I was just too young and I would come to think of things their way when I got older.

Or they would tease me about my body.

Or they would respond to a positive development in my life — an award or good grade at school, for example — by admonishing me in all the ways I was failing now or could fail in the future.

Or I would be subject to general teasing — the kind that probably goes on in most families — but with a sharp edge, a hostility to it. A tone that made me perpetually uneasy, self-conscious, doubtful and critical of myself.

Whatever it was, ultimately, there was something wrong with me.

These were my authority figures. They weren’t just casually distrusting me. They were engaging in a coordinated campaign to make sure I understood that my own thoughts, opinions, and experiences didn’t matter, weren’t trustworthy, weren’t reasonable; that I would eventually become just like them, regardless what I thought or felt right then; that I was ultimately unimportant and unlovable, that I was a nobody, that I would go nowhere in life.

They loved me. I know they did. But they also hated me. There is simply no way around it. I was devastated when I first really came to terms with that. My own brothers and sister hated me.

And all the while, they were telling me: This is love. And this is the only love you’re ever going to get.

What do you think that’s going to do to a child?

5.

My mother’s social life followed a regular, recognizable pattern.

She would make some friends. At church, doing Avon, whatever. Then over the next couple years (sometimes months), she would grow gradually closer to them — just like any ol’ person does.

But then she would hit a certain point, when those friends were approaching a closeness, when they were moving from casual friends to intimate friends.

And once they hit that point, her attitudes spun a complete 180. She began to regard them with suspicion. She would identify all these little ways, all of a sudden, that the very things she appreciated before, were signs of something sinister. If she missed a few church services and someone checked in to see how she was doing — it wasn’t a caring friend trying to help out someone sie cared about — it was a conspiracy of some sort; they were trying to dig information, to squeeze their way in, to find some way to ruin her life. If she misplaced some item at home, those people must have broken in while she was gone and taken it — anything from a garage key to a dish to a piece of scrap paper.

She became hostile. She became… resentful. She thought that these people were getting together to make her life difficult. The conspiracy would begin to grow, become more complicated by the day.

She’d begin to retreat. Stop going places. Avoid people as much as possible. No sense of trust anymore. Everyone is a potential conspirator. Everyone is an enemy.

And then — the final stage — she would move. Claim to have been “run out of town.” She would find somewhere new, where she wasn’t known — and start over.

And the whole process would begin again.

6.

It was five or six years after D*’s ordeal in prison that G* began to take an interest in the same stuff. He started reading, and reading, and reading. And the more he read, the more passionate he became about it all.

At the time, my brothers were getting into this thing about “copyrighting” your name. I think they saw it as a way to take back possession of that “self” that the government owns. I would argue to no avail.

They decided to “copyright” their names. They each placed a classified ad in the local paper declaring their rights to their names. Declaring that this name now belonged to them, and any violation of their copyright would be punishable by some amount of money. They did some more reading, and decided each violation was worth $50,000.

A little while later, G*’s name ran in the local paper for some innocuous reason I can’t remember. Just a mention, like as a parent in a graduation or engagement announcement, or some sort of meaningless news brief.

G*’s idea of rectifying the situation meant going down to the courthouse and filing a form declaring that the District Attorney was in debt to him, to the tune of a quarter million dollars, for each of five mentions of his name in the newspaper, and placed a lien on her property.

This went unnoticed for some time, until the DA tried to sell her house and found this random man had placed a lien on the property. So she took him to court.

The court case was long and involved, because a buddy of his had tried the same thing and was being tried with him. There was investigation done into the groups and writings G* and his buddy were involved in. Second court systems that claimed to have authority over the government. The buddy was trying to sell cars without registrations because that was giving yourself over to the government. They accused him of being a terrorist. The prosecutor, in his closing statement, actually began to cry loudly in front of the jury, sniffed, then apologized, saying his son was in Fallujah right now and it’s because of these people (my brother and his buddy) that people like my son are dying for their country.

He was found guilty of all charges, including a felony conspiracy charge, and sentenced to fifteen days in prison and five years probation. His buddy got a couple years in prison.

Once he got out of prison, G* decided to go to a doctor. This is when he was referred to a few specialists, and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, GAD and major depression. He was given a couple medications, one for his fibromyalgia pain and one for his mental condition. He tried them. But he came off them soon after — maybe a couple weeks.

That is the only time either of my brothers tried to seek help for their conditions. Didn’t last long – G* was soon back to his old self — distrustful of the doctors, very resistant to treatment. He is the one, after all, who dropped a very heavy metal object on his toe, breaking it, splitting the toenail so bad it fell right off, and getting a nasty infection to go with it — and absolutely refused to go to the hospital or even a walk-in doctor.

Then again, D* is the one who passed several kidney stones without ever seeing a doctor. He looked on the internet and found several “alternative” health sites that told him which foods to eat to “flush it out.” He followed the instructions, bearing a few months of extreme pain before finally passing them. Would not see a doctor.

Never in my lifetime has he willingly seen a medical professional. He is by far the most paranoid and most distrustful of authority in my family — why would he ever trust a doctor? They might be passing along information to — well, anyone. Either way, they are a threat far more than a help, so it would be downright dangerous for him to ever step in a medical office.

Part II: The Political

Last week’s conversation in “Emails from my mother” saw many people with similar experiences. Many people who have family members with mental illness, and many people who experienced abuse from family members, and many who have experienced both.

There were, however, several disappointing turns the conversation took. And we really need to address those.

Mental illness is still widely misunderstood in our society. In popular conception, mental illness marks a person as dangerous, incommunicable, strange and weird, living in their own world, not a whole person, not the same kind of person. According to this conception, a mentally ill person has no control over their own thoughts. “The illness” controls them. Any unsavory actions are attributed to “the illness.”

There is also popular conception (which somewhat contradicts the above, but both are still commonly held together without second thought), that says that mental illness is a character flaw: that a person need only buck up, think positive, get some sun, stop being so negative, exercise, etc. and it will all just go away. The subtler, more “enlightened” form of this conception says that a mentally ill person just needs to attend therapy and get the right medication, and it will all just go away. As if it’s that easy.

As a society, we marginalize the mentally ill eagerly, without compunction. They’re scary, they’re dangerous, they’re just not like us, they need to be controlled, for their good and ours, because they are a threat to orderly society.

Except that we aren’t. People who are mentally ill are no more likely to commit violence than people who aren’t. The only factor which increased the risk of violence is substance abuse — a factor which also increases risk of violence in the non-mentally ill. And much stronger predictors of violence include being male, young, low income, recently unemployed and recently divorced or separated. For what stigma they still may face, do we assign anywhere near the same amount of “danger” to divorcees and the unemployed as we do to the mentally ill? And yet….

And yet: people with mental illness are twice as likely to be the victims of violence. Does anyone even pretend to pay attention to that?

And why might that be? Well, when people associate mentall illness with violence, they are

significantly more likely to report attitudes related to fear and dangerousness, to endorse services that coerced persons into treatment and treated them in segregated areas, to avoid persons with mental illness in social situations, and to be reluctant to help persons with mental illness.

Huh. Imagine that. People who are told that already-marginalized people are a danger to them and all that they hold dear will begin to have ideas that those marginalized folk need to be controlled, avoided, medicated, segregated…

And this attitude, this automatic assumption that mental illness makes a person violent and dangerous, is so pervasive across our society, and so deeply-held — and yet so wrong, so not true.

Don’t you think, perhaps, then, many of our other assumptions about mental illness — no matter how deeply-held, how widely-agreed-upon — might also be wrong?…

Like that they lack empathy or reasoning ability?

Or… that abuse and mental illness can be safely conflated?

I’m not even going to bother linking specific comments for that one, because there were so many, and I participated in it too. I made the same mistake. I had suffered abuse from someone with a mental illness, and I failed to realize that there were two things going on there, two different things, and that one is not an inevitable result of the other.

Try reading my stories above again. Do you see the distinction? I told stories of growing up as a family member of people with mental illness, and I told stories of growing up abused. Did you see the two different things going on when you first read them? Or did you think I was talking about the same thing the whole time?

I was called out on my next post for writing as though the mentally ill, and people with disabilities in general, were a separate group, off there, somewhere away from all of “us.”

As though people with mental health conditions are not scattered throughout the entire population. As though my best friends don’t have these conditions. As though I don’t have them! And I do!… And I even made a specific plea in that very post for people with conditions like mine to stop thinking of themselves as separate from the people the public thinks of when they hear the words “mentally ill”!

We are all subject to these attitudes, and they reach deep into the core of our world views. It takes careful, concerted effort to undo the damage done by bias, hostility and ignorance. And even with that effort, oftentimes these attitudes remain — they are woven so deeply we don’t even know that they’re there. Even when we’re looking for them.

So we need to keep a sharp eye.

One very popular idea about mental illness, which was shown throughout the “Emails” thread, is that one can separate out “the illness” from “the person” — and that any unsavory actions or behaviors can be attributed to “the illness.” That makes it OK, because it’s not the actual person inside making those decisions to act in those ways, but some vague, faceless, soulless thing that infects them.

This, of course, is a tactic to remove agency from the mentally ill person. A family member may latch onto this idea as a form of comfort, a way to identify with “the real person” inside their loved one’s body, which is separate from “the illness” which is what did things that harmed them.

But this idea exists for a purpose, and its purpose is not comfort to those of us who struggle with our families. Its purpose is to aid control of the mentally ill population. Because when their agency is removed, it makes it much easier to impose things on them, to coerce them into things, which we would never tolerate on the healthy population.

When agency is removed from a person, it makes us less likely to identify with that person as a fellow human being. We are less likely to consider how something may affect them as a human being, with a family and a community and a life of their own, which might be affected in so many ways by this restriction or that proposal.

When agency is removed, we feel much safer making decisions for someone else.

But persons with mental illness still have agency. They are whole persons, not diminished by their difference. Their illness is not simply a disruptive module overlaid on a “normal” person’s brain. It is their brain. It simply works in a way that a normal person’s brain doesn’t.

A circle is not a square with the corners cut off. It’s an entirely different shape.

And this difference is not inherently detrimental. I know a lot of people really had trouble with this concept in the “Language” thread. And it is such an alien concept to most of the world that I know people will continue to have trouble with it. But the fact remains: Difference is not inherently bad. A different body, a different brain (which, really, is a part of the body) — these things are not inherently bad just because they do not conform to the established social norm.

Please make note, there, of the key word “inherently.” Because a particular difference in body or mind might make that person’s life difficult in certain ways. Many of these are attributable not to the person and their difference itself, but to the fact that society fails to prepare itself for this difference. Many, however, are not. Some things are just shitty to experience. As I said, I have a chronic pain condition. Pain is, to say the least, unpleasant. There just isn’t any getting past that. But, as I said in the “Emails” thread,

There may still be issues with this condition that make life genuinely hard, that cause pain and hurt to that person, and we must acknowledge that…. [But] the pain and hurt is not the whole story. A thing can be both good and bad, benefit and harm at the same time. “Normalness” is such a thing, surely, as well!

Mental illness undoubtedly has negative effect on many people who live with it. Right now it is very hard to separate out how much of that is due to the illness and how much of that is because we restrict access to understanding and affirmative health care and equal access to society to such a point that almost everyone with mental illness is going to go through some shitty stuff because of it, even if their difference from the norm is relatively slight, and the effect on their life relatively light.

The focus in making their life easier, then, should not be in training the illness out of the person to make them more like “normal.” It should be identifying ways that life is hard for that person, and figuring out how to make it not-hard. That means identifying the true cause of the problem, rather than always assuming the cause is the person’s failure to conform to “normal.”

The true cause might be that the person’s brain regulates its chemicals in a way that makes life hard on the person, and so we try to modify things to bring the brain closer to a place the person will be happy with. This is a very different thing than assuming the cause is the brain regulating chemicals in a not-”normal” way, and therefore the solution is to force the brain to regulate things the “normal” way.

Then again, the true cause might be that the person doesn’t have prescription coverage, that they have trouble finding employment and therefore can’t afford the medicine they need, that there isn’t any support for living independently in their community, that people have weird ideas about them and treat them differently in social situations in such a way as to make their life very difficult.

All of these situations have different solutions, and they aren’t “make the person more like normal or else keep them away from the rest of us by whatever means possible.” Which is, unfortunately, the default solution given how we approach mental illness right now.

And this solution is only possible given that we assume things like “the illness is separable from the person.”

The thing is, many of us with mental illness would beg to differ. Our conditions are not a separate animal; they are not a “disruptive module overlaid on a normal brain;” they are us and we are them. That does not mean that one particular condition must be the single most defining thing in our lives — but it does mean that it is, however large or small, simply one aspect of our selves, one of the many things that make us, each individual person, who we are.

abbyjean put it particularly well in a private email (quoted with permission):

so i’ve been mulling about [the practice of] drawing a distinction between “things a person does of their own agency” and “things a person does because of their illness.” [...]

in my mind, that’s not a meaningful distinction, because the idea of “things i do of my own agency without influence from my illness” is a null set. i cannot separate myself or my thoughts or my motivation from my illness. the illness is so much a part of me, so much a part of my brain, that the idea of me without the illness just doesn’t make sense. imagining how i might think about or react to specific facts and situations had i never become ill, never been diagnosed, never gone through treatment, never relapsed, never been suicidal, etc, is so remote and hypothetical as to be meaningless. how might i react to a situation had i been born and raised in canada by moose hunters? i don’t know. it’s equally remote from my life and experiences, and equally irrelevant to my actual actions and thoughts and reactions.

A circle is not a square with the corners cut off. It is an entirely different shape. And both the shapes are of equal value.

Neither the circle nor the square is any better or worse, more valuable or less valuable, more whole or less whole than the other. They are both whole, they are both legitimate, they are both worthy, they both are. They just are, they are what they are, and you cannot define one in terms of the other.

This, this is what we don’t get in our discussion of any physical or mental difference, is that we cannot define that difference in terms of the “normal” default! The fact that most of the world, and even most social justice activism communities don’t realize the inherent problem with doing this, is indicative of exactly how much we have to break down here — more than I, just one person in all her imperfections, can try to encompass in one blog post.

Part III: Where the personal gets political

There was a discussion, earlier this year sometime, on Feministe about the right of people with mental illness to refuse treatment. I couldn’t read the whole thing, it was so triggering for me. And I have no desire to search out the specific post and conversation and relive how awful that was.

But I will say this, as a child who grew up in a family that was never un-affected by mental illness, and as a child who grew up under abuse. A child who is still trying to sort out everything that means to her, and will be for the rest of her life.

As a child who watched her family start and struggle, who watched her brothers go through very personal court cases, prison and probation because they had mental illness and their world did not reconcile with society’s world. As a child who watched her brother and sister seek treatment stopping and startingly, watched how that treatment affected them. As a child who observed the differing conditions of her family members throughout periods of differing amounts of support and differing amounts of (pressure/trial/tribulation). As a child who suffered worse abuse during those periods of lesser support and greater (pressure).

I would never, ever force any of my loved ones to submit to treatment they were not willing to take.

It is not a mentally ill person’s responsibility to force hirself into a square box sie does not fit in, so that the rest of the square shapes won’t be unduly affected by hir difference.

It is never a mentally ill person’s responsibility to submit to treatment they do not want to undergo because otherwise they would be a danger to somebody else.

Did you read what I wrote up there? Mentally ill persons are no likelier to perpetrate violence than mentally “healthy” persons, and in fact are twice as likely to be the victims of violence.

The only time the rate of violence rises is — surprise, surprise — when substance abuse is present.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when the institutions that were supposed to be supporting them were instead working against them.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when the rest of the world was treating them with disdain for being different.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when they had no other options left, because society took them all away.

When people with mental illness are supported, when there is an affirmative environment where they can seek help for the problems they face participating in society and there are ways to address those problems in a way that respects their wholeness and humanity and agency — when the rest of the world is willing to be there with a supportive hand when they reach for one, not bearing down an iron fist against their wishes –

– then — guess what — mental illness doesn’t have to be a Big Scary Deal.

The term disability is not a static one but is the result of a person–environment interaction. The less supportive the physical and social environment, the greater the amount of disability. (source)

I know, it’s a radical idea:

Disability isn’t the result of individual defects, deviations from the able-bodied norm. Disability is the result of a society that fails to accommodate these differences.

What if we saw these differences as variation, not deviation? After all, we fully expect our children to be born with any number of different eye colors. Why is it any less when it comes to physical and mental abilities?

Can you shape a world in your mind where there is no norm? What does it look like? How does it differ from the world you live in today? What do you expect of people as a whole in order to support those currently disadvantaged?

The more I think, the more confused I become. It seems impossible to structure society so that everyone is brought to a similar level of ability across the board. But it does seem possible to structure society so that those fully-abled work to make up for those straightforwardly lacking, and everyone works with each other in full expectation of a wide range of ability across the populace, and all of this is seen not as hassling and burdensome, noble and heroic when someone takes it on—but as mundane, everyday, simply expected, no different from separating out your recyclables or driving on the right side of the road: something that everybody does, because it isn’t that hard to do, and it benefits yourself as well as those around you, so it’s stupid and even outright reprehensible not to.

That is the world I want to live in.

Instead, we have sober, reasonable discussions about whether or not mentally ill people are allowed to own their own minds and bodies. We have sober, reasonable discussions about whether their Obvious Danger To The Rest Of Us Important People is too great to bother respecting their personhood and bodily autonomy.

We have removed their agency, and thus feel comfortable making decisions for them.

When instead, maybe what we could do is — I don’t know, recognize the diversity in neural makeup? Recognize that people have different conceptions of The World and How It Works, have different approaches to dealing with that world they conceive? And that their approach isn’t inherently worse just because it ends up conflicting with the majority view — that maybe that conflict isn’t a sign of their difference having to be bad or wrong?

And let people have their damn differences, and when those conflicts come up, manage them. In a way that respects yes, the person is different from the norm. But guess what? The norm is different from them. The fact that there IS a difference does not bestow upon the different parties any particular worth or value. It just is. It just is.

Around the corner, about a quarter mile down the street, there is a small plot of land across from the rows of public housing, next to the community center. It was just untended grass until several months ago, in the springtime, when small squares were outlined with wooden planks, and the ground inside filled with soil. Then the shed was built, and the fence was put up.

Welcome to the neighborhood garden.

Community gardens are a great way to make use of space — to grow your own vegetables, herbs and so forth — to feed your family, save some money — and to develop a connection with the lad you live on — to have a hand in creation, nature, sustenance.

I was across from the fields, growing up, but in a different way. Most of my elementary classmates were children of undocumented field workers. The food that makes it onto your plate by way of your local supermarket has a good chance of being tended and harvested by these families.

They were not picking grapes and lemons and walnuts for pleasure, for self-realization. They were not feeding their families with this food. Their work was for the rest of the world.

They were connected with the earth, for sure. But it was not quite the same connection as that developed by participants in community gardens.

Many of these gardens serve underprivileged, disadvantaged communities — as this one — who are struggling to keep their families well fed and provided for. But it strikes me every time I sit to think about it: these two different ways of relating to nature are both borne of hardship, of poverty. They are connections forged by the reality of subsistence. They operate in different ways, with different results, but they grow from the same root.

I smile whenever I pass this garden. It is thriving, providing nutrition for poor families and a bright site of beauty in the middle of a run-down area.

But I wonder whether we could ever come up with a more holistic way of dealing with these issues. One which does not leave some families chained to the earth in the reality of capitalistic agriculture, and others disconnected from it in the reality of modernity and urbanism.

I’ve met a lot of really cool people, I’ve learned a lot of really important stuff, and I hope I’ve made some small difference in some small way, somewhere.

You guys have kept me going. I wouldn’t still be here without feedback, without someone telling me that what I said made some difference to them. I am steadily finding my own voice in writing, sharpening the mind (allow me to stop for a laugh – ha! – ok) deepening my understanding of these issues.

Two years ago, I didn’t identify as “disabled” myself. I was interested in feminism, but I had little concept of the weaknesses the in mainstream feminist movement, particularly around race, trans issues, and (though it’s seemingly never identified so outrightly) class. The more I’ve explored, the more I’ve learned.

And the more I’ve vocalized my thoughts, my experiences, the more I’ve learned about myself; the more I’ve been able to figure out who I am, what I care about, what my strengths are and what I need to work on.

The people who have taken the time to read my comments and posts, to respond, to support and to challenge — you folks are so important. Movement building is a community effort; it takes all of our individual voices to form a strong collective force. Even when you feel small and isolated, you are still a part of the whole, an important part.

I want to encourage anyone who feels small and unsteady to raise your voice, to speak out, to detail your experiences, how they affect your views, how you think we can make this world better. Our personal stories are far more powerful than many let on. We, the small people, connect with each other, commiserate, deliberate, and decide on ideas and priorities that trickle up, over time, to the top reaches of the power structure. It does happen. We make it happen.

I love hearing from all of you. And I hope you will speak out more — in comments here and elsewhere — or in your own space — and develop your own voice. You might feel small and unimportant, but you might be surprised, when you tap into that voice, and feed it, and shape it — how strong it is.

And you might — like me — be surprised, when you use it, to find people who normally keep quiet will speak up.

Your individual experiences may not be representative of the mainstream. That is all the more reason to speak about them. Because there are others, like you, who would be strengthened to see their experiences represented somewhere.

And the entire community will be strengthened when it can recognize the range and diversity of experiences within it.

Thank you for everything you have contributed here. And I hope I’ll see you around.